CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

 This study analyzed differences in black and white perceptions of racial issues and questioned the notion that they are always polar opposites. Findings revealed that black and white perceptions sometimes diverged while at other times they did not. There were times when statistical significance was achieved regarding particular issues but not all the time and even then, its importance might not have been substantively meaningful. For example, black and white opinions did not differ statistically when students were asked to rate blacks in general on their attitudes toward whites, but differences did appear when both groups were asked to rate whites in general on their attitudes toward blacks. The questionnaire documented that race is associated with perception formation but it is not the only factor and perhaps not even the strongest factor. Race explained a small to moderate proportion of the total variance in how one responded to particular questions. In contrast, the variable degree of proximity was shown to play a statistically significant role in influencing how a subject responded to a particular question. When one looked at race and degree of proximity together, degree of proximity often provided a higher eta squared than race. This chapter will be divided into three sections that expand the analysis of each hypothesis addressed in this project.

The first hypothesis stated that blacks in general would be more pessimistic than whites. Six out of seven times the general direction of the hypothesis was supported but the results were only statistically significant on four questions. As shown in Figures 4-10, the lines indicating black responses were always closer to the pessimistic view than the lines representing white perceptions. A possible reason for this result is that blacks are a minority group in America. According to Healey (1995), members of minority groups experience patterns of disadvantage or inequality. A pattern of disadvantage or inequality would lead members of that group to be pessimistic about many situations since they are not receiving the same rewards and benefits as members of the majority group. In addition, as Doob (1993) argued, contemporary racism, especially institutional racism, allows inequalities to be maintained and if blacks believe they live in a racist society, this would naturally lead to a more negative outlook on events. In short, blacks are the victims of racism while whites are the beneficiaries. So in a racist society, it is not surprising that blacks hold more pessimistic views than whites.

Even though whites, for the most part, also viewed many social activities in this questionnaire negatively, their experiences as the majority group are different than the minorities who have actually encountered the discriminatory practices. So for example, when students were asked if blacks had the same chance as whites for jobs or opportunities, one should expect blacks to be more pessimistic. The historical treatment of blacks in America have conditioned them to expect the worst and hope for the best. Even though, many people claim racism is no longer prevalent in this society, numerous incidents in the 1990's continue to showcase that blacks are sometimes treated unfairly or unequally so that present-day experiences also re-affirm this belief. Pessimistic feelings are held by many blacks today because of these past and current treatments.

Regardless of whether or not American society is truly racist, the pessimistic responses of blacks indicate they detect a racist (or unjust) society while the more optimistic responses of whites indicate they perceive that it is not racist, or not as racist as blacks proclaim. This is why in poll after poll, whites continually provided a "rosy" outlook of America. Whites do not believe America is a racist society. Their experiences do not lead them perceive a racist society so as a result, they have a more optimistic outlook on issues like equal opportunity or prejudicial attitudes.

The unsubstantiated pattern indicating that black students rated other blacks more negatively than whites poses an interesting question for researchers. Even though, the findings were not statistically significant, one might wonder if blacks do indeed hold negative attitudes toward other blacks than do whites. Allport (1954) stated in-group members generally favor their own group over the out-group. So when asked to rate their own members versus outsiders, in-group members will generally be rated more positively. People do not like to disparage their own group. In other words, an expected result would have had whites agreeing more with the statement that blacks do hold prejudicial views against whites. This hypothesis was not supported among blacks but was supported among whites. Whites rated their own group more favorably than the out-group.

Much of the research has focused on how whites and blacks feel about whites but little research has focused how blacks feel about blacks. The findings in this study indicate this sample of black students might hold negative feelings toward other blacks.

There are three possible reasons for black negativity toward other blacks. The most commonly heard explanation today is internalized oppression or self-hatred. This reason is frequently used to explain black-on-black violence. The theory states that because blacks have been downtrodden for so long, they have internalized racist notions and believe them to be true. The theory hypothesizes that when someone states blacks are lazy, many blacks will agree with the statement. A second explanation is that blacks are more willing to admit their prejudice than whites. The public sanctions whites would encounter if they publicly admitted they were racist are considerable. Sanctions for blacks on the other hand may not be as severe. Blacks can perhaps be more honest in their appraisal of themselves. A third possible explanation is that blacks are indeed more prejudice than whites. Blacks are more prejudice because they dislike or mistrust whites. The historical mistreatment of blacks by whites might lead blacks to hold very negative views of whites. So when asked if blacks are prejudice, they readily admit they are prejudice against whites because of past injustices. Or they might not believe holding prejudicial views as being a negative.

Another finding was that the sample was for the most part very pessimistic. The questionnaire used a seven point scale where a four indicated a neutral response. Many students responded with negative responses. The mean black response was always negative. Whites responded positively only twice to the questions: do whites feel comfortable dealing with blacks and to the question; and are opportunities fair and equal on campus. Otherwise, all students evaluated relations as not good or fair.

The second hypothesis postulated that the degree of proximity would play a pivotal role in shaping one’s perceptions. For every question, the effects of degree of proximity were statistically significant and generally rendered moderate squared etas. The data supported the hypothesis that the more distant and abstract the degree of proximity, the more pessimistic racial issues would be. In Chapter II, Allport offered some explanations as to why the farther environments might be judged more harshly. Like the argument presented in hypothesis one, people are generally ethnocentric. Using Allport’s terminology, one might refer to the campus context as an in-group. As the circle expands to include more and more people, the strength of membership steadily decreases. The weakening of these bonds now resemble Schutz’s they-relations. When asked to refer to these farther environments, more rigorous typifications are used (ideal types) to comprehend such a large amount of data. The people and images within these distant contexts are typified in ways not associated with the closer context. As people or objects become more anonymous, the more one depends on ideal type categorization. And the "ideal type" typification regarding race relations are that "things are bad" so one’s perception of it should be pessimistic.

Finally, the misestimation of the true percentage of each racial group was effected by one’s degree of proximity. The difference between the true value and the estimations increased the larger degree of proximity became. For example, there was a small gap between the true value and the estimated value when students had to estimate the percentage of whites in the city. The gap widened when students estimated the national percentage. The same pattern was observed when estimating the black population. Again, this seems to illustrate the process of typifications. Campuses might be considered a we-relation were variability is the greatest. At the national level, differences are accentuated and variability narrows so that small differences (or groups) seem larger in number. The students did a better job of estimating the true population of the campus than the country probably because they also have direct experience with the campus. Students can adjust their estimates of the campus daily, but within the national context they only get a small glimpse and that glimpse is pre-packaged.

Do white and black perceptions differ? The answer is that it depends on the perception in question. The questions in this study could be divided into two types. One set of questions asked about social issues. These involved questions dealing with equality in opportunities and job hiring. The other set of questions pertained to attitudinal issues regarding prejudice and level of comfort with other races.

Social issues yielded different perceptions between blacks and whites. Blacks are a minority group and most minority group members generally do not receive the same treatment and benefits as whites. Also as minority group, blacks generally do not share the same experiences as whites. Experiences filter back into one’s stocks of knowledge which people draw on when they are asked to give their perceptions on a given event. So when asked to comment on the equality of jobs and opportunities, what whites "detect" might be radically different from what blacks "detect." Each group’s stocks of knowledge are different. Even the term equality might have a different meaning for each group. These meanings influence their perceptions of the social world which show up as divergent opinions on the questionnaire.

Allport illustrated that there is a process to categorization (types). People believe their categories are rational and that one modifies them reluctantly (discounting). These categories are based on a pre-established body of knowledge that filters how one sees the world (see appendix C, Figures 12 and 13). This means that many times, an experience can re-enforce an existing idea but not likely change it.

A common problem encountered today is that whites say blacks detect racism or mistreatment when it is not present. Where a white person sees equal opportunities, a black person sees discrimination. The same principle holds true with other majority/minority relationships. A woman feels uncomfortable where a man asserts there is no gender inequality. How does one reconcile the differences in perception between two groups? Each group will insist their interpretation is correct. As Figures 1 & 2 showed, multiple realities can exist. It just depends on which reality one detects and if the person has the tools (experiences, stocks) to detect it.

The second set of questions involved attitudinal questions. Again, racial differences appeared but only in one direction. With these questions, blacks and whites did not differ when asked to rate blacks but they did differ when asked to rate whites. Black and white perceptions differed when students rated whites: blacks saw whites as holding more prejudicial views and being more uncomfortable than whites saw themselves. Using the same reasoning applied earlier in this chapter, the belief in racism might provide a plausible explanation as well as the ethnocentric effect in explaining the differences found. The ethnocentric principle predicts whites would rate their own kind more favorable than would an outside group. So when asked if whites hold prejudicial views, white students would agree many whites hold prejudicial views but not as high as blacks make them out to be. Blacks as an out-group would have a different opinion of the in-group which might lead to differing perceptions. Conversely, the long history of mistreatment by whites against blacks would lead many blacks to claim whites indeed still hold prejudicial views and are uncomfortable dealing with blacks.

That whites are still prejudice against blacks is supported by opinion polls. The phenomenon of white flight in residential housing and numerous surveys indicate that whites do mind when the black population increases past a certain proportion. In a recent Gallup Poll (1997), white parents were asked if they minded sending their children to particular schools depending on the size of the minority student population. As the minority population increased from a few to half to more than half of the students, the percentage of white parents who would mind increased from 3 percent to 12 percent to 41 percent. The same Gallup Poll also indicated that many whites feel other whites are prejudiced, which is the same result observed in this study.

Nevertheless, whites were less likely to judge themselves as holding prejudicial views as blacks were to judge themselves as holding prejudicial views. The same process was true regarding feelings of comfort around another racial group. Whites were more likely to say they felt comfortable around blacks than blacks would say about being comfortable around whites. A possible reason is that blacks believe racism exists. Since it does, they frame all interactions on that belief. So they cannot ignore the social reality as they see it which says whites are indeed prejudice against blacks. Blacks should feel more uncomfortable because the negative consequence of race falls on them not whites. This would lead to their more negative viewpoints. Also the consequence of blacks being prejudicial toward whites does not have the same consequences as the reverse. Lastly, the principle of in-group ratings of one’s own group as opposed to the same rating by the out-group is seen here regarding whites. Whites rated themselves more favorable than blacks did of whites.

The previous explanations tried to understand why blacks and whites differed in perceptions. The next explanation attempts to understand why blacks and whites held similar viewpoints on certain topics such as why there were difference between the races when estimating the black population but no differences when estimating the white population. Both racial groups live in an American culture, which for the most part, is a white culture. Because they are the majority group, whites do not have to know much about blacks to succeed or communicate in the U.S. Blacks, however, as a minority group, must acquire knowledge about themselves as well as white culture. What is relevant for blacks might not be relevant for whites but what is relevant for whites usually is relevant for blacks also. So when asked to comment about whites, both blacks and whites are sharing the same "stocks of knowledge" to a degree but when asked to comment about blacks, the two groups are now using different stocks. As mentioned in the results section, all the estimations of the black population, regardless of the degree of proximity, between blacks and whites were so divergent that the differences were statistically significant. Only with one context, the university setting, was the differences between black and white estimates of the white population statistically different. Black people generally are around many whites so they perceive the same percentages as whites do. An good example is asking whites and blacks to name a show watched by many whites. Both groups would probably come up with similar answers. But if asked to name a black show, many whites might not be able to name one. The results of this study, when compared to Table 10, reveal the same pattern. Both groups were relatively similar in guessing the white population and differed in estimating the black population. Unlike the earlier studies, these students did remarkably well in guessing the true populations. Their biggest departure came when trying to guess the population in the U.S. The notion of both group sharing the same knowledge about whites was supported even though both groups underestimated the white population. Both racial groups were very similar in their underestimation. Since a minority group lives within the social world of the majority group, they must acquire knowledge about the majority group to function. Much of the social world is based on the perceptions of the majority group because of power differentials. The opposite is not true unless under specific situations. So if a minority group wants to have some level of success in the majority controlled environment, they either assimilate, try to make the majority group perceive events as the minority group does or change the balance of power.

Lastly, a primary concern was the correct interpretation of the data. In the social sciences, personal values and interests often interject themselves into research which can cause many problems. Certain utilities are available to researchers when conducting data analysis to help them provide a unbiased evaluation of their results.

This project found that there are racial difference but that those differences depend on a number of factors. Sometimes, the races do not differ at all. Degree of proximity showed it had more of an impact than race in many of the questions reviewed. Even if one left out locale, the most race contributed to the total variance of a question was 19 percent. This study also contained non-statistically significant differences. Some might say researchers should not even bother with non-significant results. But a non-statistically significant result indicated convergence of opinions between the two racial groups. Something that is rarely mentioned in the media or academic journals.

Table of Contents

Chpt. 1

Chpt. 2

Chpt. 3

Chpt. 4

Chpt. 5

Chpt. 6

Chpt. 7